Properties Subject to Seizure

8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure

1/33

PROPERTIES

SUBJECT TO

SEIZURE


2/33

Rule 126 Search and Seizure.Sec 3. Personal property to be seized.

A search warrant may be issued for

the search and seizure of personal

property:a) Subject of the offense;

b) Stolen or embezzled and otherproceeds, or fruits of the offense;

c) Used or intended to be used as means

for the commission of an offense


3/33

ADMISSIBILITY OF

ILLEGALLY SEIZED

EVIDENCE


4/33

a) Art. III. Section 2. The right of the people to be

secured in their persons, houses, papers, and

effects against unreasonable searches and

seizures of whatever nature and for any

purpose shall be inviolable, and no search

warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue exceptupon probable cause to be determined

personally by the judge after examination

under oath or affirmation of the complainantand the witnesses he may produce, and

particularly describing the place to be searched

and the persons or things to be seized


5/33

Section 3.

2. Any evidence obtained in violation of

this or the preceding section shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in anyproceeding.

Articles illegally seized are not

admissible as evidence.


6/33

The following evidence are inadmissible:

1. evidence obtained in violation of the

right against unreasonable search and

seizure


privacy of communication and

correspondence, except upon lawfulorder of the court or when public safety

or order requires otherwise


7/33

3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial

confessions which are uncounselled, or

when the confessant was not properlyinformed of his constitutional rights, or

when the confession was coerced


right against self-incrimination


8/33

The Exclusionary Rule Principle

- the principle which mandates that

evidence obtained from an illegal

arrest, unreasonable search or coerciveinvestigation, or in violation of a

particular law, must be excluded from

the trial and will not be admitted as

evidence.


9/33

1. The principle judges the admissibility ofevidence based on HOW the evidence isobtained or acquired and not WHAT theevidence proves.

2. The principle is to be applied only if it is soexpressly provided for by the constitution orby a particular law. Even if the manner of

obtaining the evidence is in violation of acertain law but the law does not declare thatthe evidence is inadmissible, then suchevidence will be admissible.


10/33

Example:

The accused claimed that information

about his bank accounts i.e. trustfunds, was obtained in violation of

the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law

(R.A. 1405) and moved to have thembe excluded as evidence.


11/33

HELD: R.A. 1405 nowhere provides that anunlawful examination of bank accounts shall

render the evidence there from inadmissible inevidence. If Congress has both established aright and provided exclusive remedies for itsviolation, the court would be encroaching

upon the prerogatives of congress if itauthorizes a remedy not provided for bystatute. Absent a specific reference to anexclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the

courts to read such a provision into the act.(Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA 190,Nov. 30, 2006).


12/33

The Doctrine of the Fruit of the

Poisonous Tree

1. Evidence will be excluded if it wasgained through evidence uncovered inan illegal arrest, unreasonable search

or coercive interrogation, or violationof a particular exclusionary law.

2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary

Rule which applies to primaryevidence. The doctrine applies only tosecondary or derivative evidence.


13/33

WARRANTLESS ARRESTS

Rule 113. Section 5.

A peace officer or a private person may,

without a warrant, arrest a person:

a) When, in his presence, the person to be

arrested has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit andoffense;


14/33

b.) When an offense has just been committed

and he has probable cause to believe based

on personal knowledge of facts orcircumstances that the person to be arrested

has committed it; and

c.) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner

who has escaped from a penal establishment

of place where he is serving final judgment oris temporarily confined while his case is

pending, or has escaped while being

transferred from one confinement to another.


15/33

When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit

and offense;

Illustration:

Umil v. Ramos (187 SCRA 311). The

Supreme Court held that rebellion is acontinuing offense. Accordingly, a rebel may

be arrested at any time, with or without

warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of

committing an offense at any time of the

day or night.


16/33

When an offense has just been committed and he has probable

cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or

circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;

Illustration: Go v. Court of Appeals (206 SCRA 138). Six days after

the shooting, as the petitioner presented himself

before the San Juan Police Station to verify new reports

that he was being hunted, the police detained him

because an eyewitness had positively identified him as

the gunman who shot Maguan. The Court held that

there was no valid arrest; it cannot be considered aswithin the meaning of the offense had just been

committed inasmuch as six days had already elapsed,

neither did the policemen have personal knowledge of

facts that Go shot Maguan.


17/33

C. When the person to be arrested is

a prisoner who has escaped from a

penal establishment of place where

he is serving final judgment or istemporarily confined while his case is

pending, or has escaped while being

transferred from one confinement toanother.


18/33

An arrest may also be made without warrant where

the right thereto is waived by the person arrested,

provided he knew of such right and knowingly

decided not to invoke it.

Illustration:

People v. Salvatierra. Appellant isestopped from questioning the illegality

of his arrest when he voluntarily

submitted himself to the jurisdiction ofthe court by entering a plea of not guilty

and by participating in the trial.


19/33

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

a) When the right is voluntarily waived.

Consent must be voluntary, i.e.unequivocal, specific and intelligently

given, uncontaminated by any duress or

coercion.


20/33

Consent to a search is not to be lightly

inferred but must be shown by clear and

convincing evidence.Illustration:

People v. Correa (285 SCRA 679). The police

officers were informed that the accused woulddeliver marijuana. They followed the accused

and later accosted him and one of the

policemen opened a tin can in the jeepney ofthe accused but the accused did not protest,

the Supreme Court held that there was

consent.


21/33

People v. Cuizon (256 SCRA 329). The

accused gave written consent for the NBI

agents to search his bags.

People v. Exala (221 SCRA 494). The right

was deemed waived because the accused

did not object to the admissibility of the

evidence during the trial, and the

submissive stance after the discovery of the

bag and the absence of any protest which

thus confirmed their acquiescence.


22/33

b. When there is valid reason to stop-

and-frisk.

Illustration: People v. Sy Chua (G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003). The

Supreme Court said that for a stop-and-frisk situation, the

police officer should properly introduce himself and make

initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifestsunusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters

outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The

apprehending officer must have a genuine reason, in

accordance with the police officers experience and thesurrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to

be held has weapons or contraband concealed about him. It

should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure

should precede the arrest for the principle to apply.

C h h h ( d i ) i


23/33

C. Where the search (and seizure) is an

incident to a lawful arrest.

Section 13. Rule 126. A person lawfully arrestedmay be searched for dangerous weapons oranything which may have been used or constitute

proof in the commission of an offense, without asearch warrant.

As a rule, the arrest must precede the search;

the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless,probable cause to make the arrest at the outsetof the search. (People v. Nuevas, G.R. No.170233, February 22, 2007)


24/33

Peoplev. De la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416). The

Supreme Court said that while it may beconceded that in a buy-bust operation,

there is seizure of evidence from ones

person without a search warrant,nonetheless, because the search is an

incident to a lawful arrest, there is no

necessity for a search warrant.


25/33

d. Search of vessels and aircraft.

Search and seizure without warrant of vesselsand aircraft for violations of the customs lawshave been the traditional exception to the

constitutional requirement of a search warrant,because the vessel can be quickly moved out ofthe locality or jurisdiction in which the searchmust be sought before such warrant could be

secured; hence, it is not practicable to require asearch warrant before such search or seizure canbe constitutionally effected. (Roldan, Jr.,etc. andthe Philippine Navy v. Hon. Arca, etc., et. Al., 65

SCRA 336)


26/33

e. Search of moving vehicles.

A warrantless search of a moving vehicle

is justified on the ground that it is not

practicable to secure a warrant because

the moving vehicle can be moved quickly

out of the locality or jurisdiction in which

the warrant may be sought.


27/33

The stop and search without a warrant

at a military or police checkpoints, has

been declared not to be illegal per se so

long as it is required by the exigencies of

public order and conducted in a way leastintrusive to the motorists. (Valmonte v.

de Villa, 178 SCRA 211). This case,

however, excited much attention andcriticism with Justices Cruz and

Sarmiento dissenting.

f Inspection of buildings and other


28/33

f. Inspection of buildings and other

premises for the enforcement of fire,

sanitary and building regulations.

This is basically an exercise of the police power of thestate, and would not require a search warrant. Theseare routine inspections which, however, must beconducted during reasonable hours. However, in

Camara v. Municipal Court, the US Supreme Courtreversed the conviction of a person who had refused awarrantless entry into his residence by municipalofficers who wanted to make a routine annualinspection of premises for possible violations of theSan Francisco House Code. The decision held thatthere was no probable cause to sustain the search andno urgency about it either to justify the inspectionwithout first obtaining a search warrant.


29/33

g. Where prohibited articles are in

plain view.

Objects in the plain view of an officer who has

the right to be in the position to have that

view are subject to seizure and may be

presented as evidence. The plain viewdoctrine is usually applied where the police

officer is not searching for evidence against

the accused, but nonetheless inadvertentlycomes upon an incriminating object. (People

v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597


30/33

Requisites:

A prior valid intrusion based on the valid

warrantless arrest in which the police arelegally present in the pursuit of their officialduties;

The evidence was inadvertently discovered bythe police who have the right to be wherethey are;

The evidence must be immediately apparent;

plain view justified the seizure of theevidence without further search.

h h


31/33

h. Search and seizure under exigent

and emergency circumstances.

Illustration:

People v. de Garcia (233 SCRA 716). TheSupreme Court ruled that the raid of and the

subsequent seizure of firearms and

ammunition in the Eurocar Sales Office at

the height of the December 1989 coup detat

was held valid, considering the exigent and

emergency situation obtaining.


32/33

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

CORRESPONDENCE

Article III, Section 3 (1).

The privacy of communication and

correspondence shall be inviolable except upon

lawful order of the court, or when public safety

or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by

law.

The guarantee includes within the mantle of its

protection tangible, as well as intangible, objects.


33/33

Illustration:

Ramirez v. Court of Appeals (248 SCRA 590). It washeld that R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wire

Tapping Act, clearly and unequivocally makes it illegalfor any person, not authorized by all the parties to anyprivate communication, to secretly record suchcommunications by means of a tape recorder. The law

does not make any distinction. Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (145 SCRA

112). It was held that a telephone extension was notamong the devices covered by RA 4200.

The right may be invoked against the wife who went tothe clinic of her husband and there took documentsconsisting of private communications between herhusband and his alleged paramour. (Zulueta v. Court

of Appeals 253 SCRA 699)

Properties Subject to Seizure

Documents

Transcript of Properties Subject to Seizure